Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Most non apologists historians with no horse in the race, say NO. It is likely that the movement that became modern Christianity was centered around a splinter sect of competing Jews who had successfully parted themselves from the Canaanite polytheism prior, were looking to usher in their own super hero to save them in their lifetime, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN.

And it still would not matter if tomorrow we found DNA evidence of a man named Jesus, which was back then a common name like Smith or Jones, it would still not make virgin births real or surviving rigor mortis real.

We can prove that George Washington was a real person, but no sane person believes the "Cherry tree" story as anything more than a myth. Nor would any sane human claim that George Washington could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass.

Jesus, like Thor and Allah, are nothing more than the wishful thinking of humans. What makes the sale of superstition in all of human history successful is the the fact that people will take real humans and real events and pepper their politics with the grandiose, not because they have facts, but because they want power.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I would check out the forums on the Jesus Myth section of the site. There is a whole lot more information there than I could provide off of the top of my head.

Me personally, I find it irrelevant whether he did or did not. From New Testament readings, the guy was a egotistical asshole and an insane one at that.

If he DID exist, that still does not prove anything.

Hell, if I went to Iraq, called myself the son of god, said I had come to fulfill the prophecies, got beheaded, and a few centuries from now some people started writing tall tales about me, would that make me a supernatural entity ?

I personally think Jesus is no more than an amalgamation of a bunch of superstitious beliefs, much like all mythical demi-gods.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

there are serious doubts about the existence of Jesus, to wit that the earliest writings relating to him from Paul, instead of drawing on real historical events, rely on visions, speaking in tongues and interpretations of the OT for their knowledge. This is all pure cult.

Another issue for me is the fact Paul is consumed with his christian opponents who all espouse different variations of the messiah concept, none of which are bound into a shared doctrine by their reliance on identical factual events. And while his work is already an apologetic, Paul fails to reveal any details of the life of Jesus as corroborating evidence as part of fierce argument. Instead his letters are full of fallacy and really rather whiny at times.

Another curiosity is that Paul does not tell the receivers of his letters exactly what Jesus said in the way he would if Jesus was an actual person. It's very odd. Instead Paul speaks as if Christ was inside him. It's a hagiography with a fringe of god-channeling. Assuming the voice of god oneself is typical of personality-based cult leaders.

I think Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle iswell worth a read and expounds on these ideas, all of which I first read in Puzzle. Carrier believes Doherty's overall case succeeds as an argument of best explanation more viably than the arguments of those contending the historicity of the NT. Having read the book I tend to agree.

NO he did NOT! Jesus is simply part of the Judeo-Christian MYTH and the evidence is clear! I've looked into this quite a bit and found some fascinating info!

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings

There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many Jews have made the tragic mistake of assuming that the New Testament story is largely correct and have tried to refute Christianity by attempting to rationalize the various miracles that allegedly occurred during Jesus's life and after his death. Numerous books have been written which take this approach to Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly flawed and is in fact dangerous since it encourages belief in the New Testament.

When the Israelites were confronted with the worship of Baal they did not blindly accept the ancient West Semitic myths as history. When the Maccabees were confronted with Greek religion they did not blindly accept Greek mythology as history. Why do so many modern Jews blindly accept Christian mythology? The answer to this question seems to be that many Christians do not know themselves where the distinction between established history and Christian belief lies and they have passed their confusion on to the Jewish community. Browsing through the religion section of a local bookstore, I recently came across a book which claimed to be an objective biography of Jesus. It turned out to be nothing more than a summary of the usual New Testament story. It even included claims that Jesus's miracles had been witnessed but that rational explanations for them might exist. Many history books written by Christians take a similar approach. Some Christian authors will suggest that perhaps the miracles are not completely historical but they nevertheless follow the general New Testament story. The idea that there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to blindly accept this belief because they have never seen it seriously challenged.

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman, "Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed (The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)." This is pretty much the consensus throughout the historical community. Ehrman also states:

"Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine."

The historical, non-biblical evidence (not that the Bible isn't a historical document--it is) for the existence of Jesus includes the writings of Tacitus (Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (Extant Writings, 18) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10:96). Attestation of the reality of Jesus is also confirmed via the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), and the writings of Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Gnostics (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection).

Some atheists (mainly on the internet, like at this website) have tried to argue that none of the above documents were written when Jesus existed and/or that the aforementioned individuals were born after Jesus died. However, contemporaneity has never been a requirement of history. You can peruse almost any historical standard and be hard-pressed to find contemporaneity as a legitimate standard. It should be noted that the following is true for almost any generally-accepted piece of ancient history: (1) We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies; (2) No historical account of the mid-1st century events was contemporaneous, because (as far as I know) no such historians existed at that time in that particular area. Moreover, the Roman sources of Jesus's time hardly mention anybody from that time period, and historians such as Ehrman will be happy to point out that you cannot discount the writings of Paul, who knew Peter and James; no credible, modern historian will deny Paul's authorship, nor will they claim that writings biased towards Jesus are such that their bias vitiates their historical viability.

You can argue all night that Jesus wasn't really God in the flesh, but please don't embarrass yourselves by trying to claim that he didn't exist.

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman,

So have you actually read Ehrman's book? Or are you just quoting the Huffington Post?

I ordered and received "Did Jesus Exist?" the day it was published. I was doing a synopsis and review on another thread and I got busy and never finished.

bismilah wrote:

We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies;

We have the originals of many Sumerian texts on clay tablets and they are even more ancient than anything biblical, so this statement of yours should be qualified.

I personally consider there was likely a Jesus as a desert prophet in the same context as Robin the Hood and King Arthur. What the real story was of any of their lives has been severely distorted. The storytales in the NT however do not represent accurately anything more than the oral stories that were prevalent any more than any other hero type of the past. They are inconsistent and contradict one another. Since I don't believe in magic other than the kind Penn & Teller perform, I'm not buying the supernatural storytelling in the Gospel accounts. If one is to buy into the Jesus storytelling why not the stories of Enki from Sumer?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

So have you actually read Ehrman's book? Or are you just quoting the Huffington Post?

Does it matter?

(The first quote is from his book; the second quote is from the Huffington Post.)

It's quite amusing when atheists try to supplant real historians. Here is a hilarious Youtube clip of Ehrman undercutting the Infidel Guy; you can hear Infidel Guy's world crashing down as someone on his atheist team undercuts his own preposterous beliefs:

We have the originals of many Sumerian texts on clay tablets and they are even more ancient than anything biblical, so this statement of yours should be qualified.

If you are willing to use "text" interchangeably with cuneiform, then yes. But your point is taken.

Quote:

I personally consider there was likely a Jesus as a desert prophet in the same context as Robin the Hood and King Arthur. What the real story was of any of their lives has been severely distorted. The storytales in the NT however do not represent accurately anything more than the oral stories that were prevalent any more than any other hero type of the past. They are inconsistent and contradict one another. Since I don't believe in magic other than the kind Penn & Teller perform, I'm not buying the supernatural storytelling in the Gospel accounts. If one is to buy into the Jesus storytelling why not the stories of Enki from Sumer?

So have you actually read Ehrman's book? Or are you just quoting the Huffington Post?

Does it matter?

Yes.

If you have read Ehrman's book then you would have first hand knowledge of his positions. If not, then you are simply putting forth the view of the Huffington Post.

So yes or no did you read his book?

bismilah wrote:

PJTS wrote:

We have the originals of many Sumerian texts on clay tablets and they are even more ancient than anything biblical, so this statement of yours should be qualified.

If you are willing to use "text" interchangeably with cuneiform, then yes. But your point is taken.

ETCSL. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature from the Oriental Institute of the University of Oxford considers cuneiform to be Sumerian texts as do most Sumerian historians. Clay tablets were their form of documents and/or texts just as papyrus was for the Egyptians (and others).

However a culture documented their knowledge and literature is per se a text.

bismilah wrote:

PJTS wrote:

I personally consider there was likely a Jesus as a desert prophet in the same context as Robin the Hood and King Arthur. What the real story was of any of their lives has been severely distorted. The storytales in the NT however do not represent accurately anything more than the oral stories that were prevalent any more than any other hero type of the past. They are inconsistent and contradict one another. Since I don't believe in magic other than the kind Penn & Teller perform, I'm not buying the supernatural storytelling in the Gospel accounts. If one is to buy into the Jesus storytelling why not the stories of Enki from Sumer?

That's a different topic.

A topic you opened with your statement that one can argue against the Jesus was the god in the flesh.

And the question in regard to why not consider the Enki stories was for my understanding if you were dismissive of them or not if you accept the Jesus stories.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

If you have read Ehrman's book then you would have first hand knowledge of his positions. If not, then you are simply putting forth the view of the Huffington Post.

I'm confused.

Are you saying that he didn't really write that article for the Huffington Post, but rather someone else wrote the article on his behalf and falsely claimed it to be his words?

If there are multiple other venues in which he says things, how is that not "first hand knowledge" of his position?

Quote:

ETCSL. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature from the Oriental Institute of the University of Oxford considers cuneiform to be Sumerian texts as do most Sumerian historians. Clay tablets were their form of documents and/or texts just as papyrus was for the Egyptians (and others).

However a culture documented their knowledge and literature is per se a text.

I wish not to belabor the semantic issues, so I'll revise my statement as such: There are no original documents from antiquity written on paper; they are all copies.

Quote:

A topic you opened with your statement that one can argue against the Jesus was the god in the flesh.

I hardly consider off-the-cuff comments to be topic-openers. Shall we also get into the topic of Egyptian papyrus, since you happened to mention it earlier?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman, "Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed (The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)." This is pretty much the consensus throughout the historical community. Ehrman also states:

"Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine."

The historical, non-biblical evidence (not that the Bible isn't a historical document--it is) for the existence of Jesus includes the writings of Tacitus (Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (Extant Writings, 18) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10:96). Attestation of the reality of Jesus is also confirmed via the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), and the writings of Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Gnostics (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection).

Some atheists (mainly on the internet, like at this website) have tried to argue that none of the above documents were written when Jesus existed and/or that the aforementioned individuals were born after Jesus died. However, contemporaneity has never been a requirement of history. You can peruse almost any historical standard and be hard-pressed to find contemporaneity as a legitimate standard. It should be noted that the following is true for almost any generally-accepted piece of ancient history: (1) We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies; (2) No historical account of the mid-1st century events was contemporaneous, because (as far as I know) no such historians existed at that time in that particular area. Moreover, the Roman sources of Jesus's time hardly mention anybody from that time period, and historians such as Ehrman will be happy to point out that you cannot discount the writings of Paul, who knew Peter and James; no credible, modern historian will deny Paul's authorship, nor will they claim that writings biased towards Jesus are such that their bias vitiates their historical viability.

You can argue all night that Jesus wasn't really God in the flesh, but please don't embarrass yourselves by trying to claim that he didn't exist.

WRONG! Ehrman is the one embarassing himself by citing bible mythology as evidence for Jesus! There is NO objective historical evidence outside the bible of Jesus! Ehrman is hardly an atheist since he is NOT objective and he is hellbent on proving Jesus exists! Plus Ehrman is a MORON for not knowing all the historical figures who were contemporaries of Jesus yet never mentioned him!

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

"Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the disciples or apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman, "Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed (The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)." This is pretty much the consensus throughout the historical community. Ehrman also states:

"Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine."

The historical, non-biblical evidence (not that the Bible isn't a historical document--it is) for the existence of Jesus includes the writings of Tacitus (Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (Extant Writings, 18) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10:96). Attestation of the reality of Jesus is also confirmed via the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), and the writings of Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Gnostics (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection).

Some atheists (mainly on the internet, like at this website) have tried to argue that none of the above documents were written when Jesus existed and/or that the aforementioned individuals were born after Jesus died. However, contemporaneity has never been a requirement of history. You can peruse almost any historical standard and be hard-pressed to find contemporaneity as a legitimate standard. It should be noted that the following is true for almost any generally-accepted piece of ancient history: (1) We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies; (2) No historical account of the mid-1st century events was contemporaneous, because (as far as I know) no such historians existed at that time in that particular area. Moreover, the Roman sources of Jesus's time hardly mention anybody from that time period, and historians such as Ehrman will be happy to point out that you cannot discount the writings of Paul, who knew Peter and James; no credible, modern historian will deny Paul's authorship, nor will they claim that writings biased towards Jesus are such that their bias vitiates their historical viability.

You can argue all night that Jesus wasn't really God in the flesh, but please don't embarrass yourselves by trying to claim that he didn't exist.

Should you ever take the time to review what and why Ehrman considers those things evidence you will discover he is talking bullshit. Or he is just an ignorant little shit. Makes no difference either way.

But there is no point in engaging in you appealing to authority. You must city the primary source material and make the case yourself.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman, "Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed (The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)." This is pretty much the consensus throughout the historical community. Ehrman also states:

"Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine."

The historical, non-biblical evidence (not that the Bible isn't a historical document--it is) for the existence of Jesus includes the writings of Tacitus (Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (Extant Writings, 18) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10:96). Attestation of the reality of Jesus is also confirmed via the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), and the writings of Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Gnostics (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection).

Some atheists (mainly on the internet, like at this website) have tried to argue that none of the above documents were written when Jesus existed and/or that the aforementioned individuals were born after Jesus died. However, contemporaneity has never been a requirement of history. You can peruse almost any historical standard and be hard-pressed to find contemporaneity as a legitimate standard. It should be noted that the following is true for almost any generally-accepted piece of ancient history: (1) We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies; (2) No historical account of the mid-1st century events was contemporaneous, because (as far as I know) no such historians existed at that time in that particular area. Moreover, the Roman sources of Jesus's time hardly mention anybody from that time period, and historians such as Ehrman will be happy to point out that you cannot discount the writings of Paul, who knew Peter and James; no credible, modern historian will deny Paul's authorship, nor will they claim that writings biased towards Jesus are such that their bias vitiates their historical viability.

You can argue all night that Jesus wasn't really God in the flesh, but please don't embarrass yourselves by trying to claim that he didn't exist.

Should you ever take the time to review what and why Ehrman considers those things evidence you will discover he is talking bullshit. Or he is just an ignorant little shit. Makes no difference either way.

But there is no point in engaging in you appealing to authority. You must city the primary source material and make the case yourself.

Ehrman is an ignorant MORON! He totally ignores the historical characters who wrote about the world who lived at the same time and place and Jesus yet NEVER mentioned any Jesus! Ehrman says he is "not aware of any" historical figures at the time of Jesus! What a MORON!!